APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Petitioner, Demetrius Grimes, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denial of his petition. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the
post-conviction court.

Two counties assessed the same property for multiple tax years.  The taxpayer appealed the double assessments to the State Board of Equalization.  The administrative law judge determined that Houston County had assessed the taxpayer’s real and personal property for more than five years before Stewart County assessed the same property.  Based on Tennessee Code Annotated § 5-2-115(d), the judge voided the later assessment.  The Assessment Appeals Commission reversed in part.  The Commission ruled that the state statute only applied to real property.  And because the personal property was located in Stewart County, Stewart County was the proper taxing authority for that property.  The trial court affirmed the agency decision.  On appeal, we conclude that Tennessee Code Annotated § 5-2-115(d) only applies to real property.  Because the agency’s decision is also supported by substantial and material evidence in the record, we affirm.

The Appellant, Lance White, was convicted in the Madison County Circuit Court of various offenses, including driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense, and received an effective six-year sentence to be served as eleven months, twenty-nine days in confinement followed by five years on supervised probation. Subsequently, the trial court revoked the Appellant’s probation, and the Appellant filed a “Motion to Correct Sentence.” The trial court denied the motion, and the Appellant appeals. Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

A Clay County jury convicted the defendant, William Isaac Atwood, of possession of a prohibited weapon and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and the trial court imposed an effective Range II sentence of thirteen years’ incarceration.  On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the trial court’s sentencing him as a Range II offender.  Upon our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.  

The Defendant, Marcus Malone, appeals as of right from his convictions for second degree murder, attempted first degree murder, five counts of attempted second degree murder, twelve counts of aggravated assault, six counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, for which the trial court imposed an effective sentence of one hundred thirty-three years. The Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress his police statement; (2) the trial court erred by failing to inquire into the Defendant’s request for substitute counsel; (3) the trial court erred by instructing the jury on criminal responsibility and by failing to instruct the jury on facilitation or self-defense; (4) the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the shooter; (5) his sentence is excessive; (6) the trial court erred by imposing partial consecutive service; and (7) his aggregate sentence is unconstitutional in light of his status as a juvenile at the time of the offenses. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm.

The defendant, Brandon Wayne Watson, appeals his Tipton County Circuit Court jury convictions of rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. On cross-appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred by merging the defendant’s conviction for aggravated sexual battery into his conviction for rape of a child. Because the evidence sufficiently supports the verdicts, we affirm the defendant’s convictions. Because the defendant’s dual convictions do not violate the principles of double jeopardy, we reverse the trial court’s merger of the offenses and remand the case for a new sentencing hearing.

The plaintiff in this action filed a petition for declaratory judgment to quiet title to his farm in Maury County, Tennessee. In his petition, the plaintiff asked for all relief necessary to quiet title, including a declaration on the boundaries of his farm and a declaration on his rights to the disputed property. In their answer, the defendants asserted adverse possession under Tennessee Code Annotated
§§ 28-2-102 and -103. The plaintiff later nonsuited one of his claims and, during the hearing on his motion for summary judgment, stated that he was seeking only a declaration on where the boundaries of his farm were “on the face of the earth.” Finding that matters related to possession of the property were not at issue, the trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff and declared the location of his “legal boundary.” The court then denied the defendants’ Motion for Relief from Judgment under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 52.02, 58, 59.04, 60.01, and 60.02. On appeal, the defendants contend, inter alia, that the trial court’s order was not final because it did not adjudicate the parties’ respective rights to possess the area in dispute. We agree. Because the purported final judgment does not resolve all of the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

Defendant, Sherman Lee Harris, pleaded guilty to delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance and received a suspended sentence of twelve years on supervised probation in 2011. In 2013, Defendant pleaded guilty to facilitation of delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance and received a suspended sentence of 10 years on supervised probation, to be served consecutively to his 12-year sentence. On January 29, 2021, after only hearing from Defendant’s probation officer regarding new charges in Shelby County, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation in both cases and ordered he serve the balance of his sentences. Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence without determining that it was reliable or that there was good cause to admit the evidence. After our review, we reverse and remand the judgments of the trial court because the State only produced unreliable hearsay evidence and thus failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant had violated the law. On remand, the trial court should hold another hearing to determine if Defendant violated his probation.

The Petitioner, Matthew Reynolds, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated kidnapping, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for not properly investigating the case and not requesting a sequestered jury, a change of venue, and a severance from his co-defendants. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying relief. 

Defendant, John William Gay, was convicted following a jury trial of aggravated robbery and theft of property under $1,000. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve a twelve-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the aggravated robbery and a concurrent eleven-month, twenty-nine-day sentence for the theft conviction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated robbery and theft of property. Defendant further argues that the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying every enhancement factor it cited, failing to apply mitigating factors, and violating the purposes and principles of sentencing. Following our review of the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, the trial court’s failure to merge the theft conviction and the aggravated robbery conviction constituted plain error. The case is remanded to the trial court for merger of those convictions and entry of corrected judgment forms to reflect said merger.

The Petitioner, Athanasios D. Edmonston, appeals from the Williamson County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and misdemeanor assault convictions and his effective twenty-four-year sentence.  On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by determining that his petition was untimely and that due process did not require tolling the statute of limitations period.  We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Appellants seek review of an order granting partial summary judgment. Because the order is not a final order giving rise to a Tenn. R. App. P. 3 appeal, we do not have jurisdiction; accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Petitioner, Nehad Sobhi Abdelnabi, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claim that he was denied a trial by an impartial jury and in dismissing his second amended petition claiming that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to convey a plea offer. After hearing oral arguments and following a review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Terrance Reece, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of unlawful possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, a Class E felony; unlawful possession of a firearm by a felony drug offender, a Class D felony; unlawful possession of a firearm having been convicted of a felony involving the use of force or violence, a Class C felony; unlawful possession of a firearm having been convicted of a felony involving the use of force, violence, or a deadly weapon, a Class C felony; vandalism of property valued at $1,000 or less, a Class A misdemeanor; and three counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. After merging the firearms counts, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of twenty-two years in the Department of Correction, with the first twelve years to be served at 60% as a career offender and the last ten years at 45% as a persistent offender. The Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: 1) whether the trial court erred by its sua sponte mid-trial hearing to address an allegation that the Defendant threatened a witness during a break in the trial, by revoking the Defendant’s bond as a result of the alleged threat, and by allowing evidence of the alleged threat to be introduced at trial; 2) whether the trial court admitted prejudicial and irrelevant evidence in the form of testimony about a bullet found in the Defendant’s pocket at the time of his arrest that was discarded by the police, unredacted 911 calls by one of the alleged victims, and copies of the Defendant’s prior Michigan judgments; and 3) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the felony convictions. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Appellant, a former inmate with the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed a complaint against Appellee State of Tennessee in the Tennessee Claims Commission (“Commission”). Appellant asserted numerous claims based on alleged misconduct of several assistant district attorneys. The Commission granted the State’s motion to dismiss based on the Commission’s findings that Appellant’s claims were not within the Commission’s jurisdiction, and were barred by prosecutorial immunity and the applicable statute of limitations. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Jamarces J. Watson, pleaded guilty to two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and eight counts of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of forty years of incarceration.  The Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court summarily dismissed.  On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred because: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of the required jury instruction pursuant to State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012) and because he failed to investigate the case; (2) the trial court improperly ruled that he forfeited his right to counsel; (3) he was denied his right to a speedy trial; and (4) the cumulative effect of the errors entitled him to relief.  After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.   

In this case, which stemmed from an attack on an inmate at a county jail, the trial court granted judgment in favor of the Defendants. Among other things, the trial court concluded that the assault on the inmate was not foreseeable. We affirm.

This case concerns the trial court’s enforcement of an antenuptial agreement. Appellant and Decedent executed an antenuptial agreement five days prior to marriage. Decedent died two years later. Appellant petitioned the trial court for her elective share, exempt personal property, year’s support, and homestead allowance. Appellees, beneficiaries under Decedent’s will, opposed Appellant’s petition arguing that she waived her spousal rights in the antenuptial agreement. Appellant argued that the antenuptial agreement was unenforceable because she did not enter into it with the required knowledge and/or she executed it under duress. In enforcing the antenuptial agreement, the trial court found that both Appellant and Decedent entered into it with the requisite knowledge of the other’s holdings. On review, we conclude that Appellant lacked knowledge of the full nature, extent, and value of Decedent’s holdings prior to executing the antenuptial agreement. Accordingly, we hold that the agreement is unenforceable. The trial court’s order is reversed.

A father has appealed from an order setting his child support obligation. Because the father did not file his notice of appeal with the clerk of the appellate court within the time permitted by Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal.  

This is an appeal by Wife from a final decree of divorce. After a thorough review of the record and the trial court’s order, we affirm in part and vacate in part.

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his action to set aside several alleged fraudulent conveyances. Because the orders appealed do not resolve all the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

Aggrieved of his Madison County Circuit Court jury convictions of aggravated assault and reckless endangerment, the defendant, Darrell Love, appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the trial court’s exclusion of certain evidence, and the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on self-defense. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Appellants seek accelerated review of a juvenile court magistrate’s denial of their motion for recusal. Because the magistrate’s decision is not subject to an accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2, we dismiss the petition and transfer the matter to the juvenile court for the juvenile judge to review the decision under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 4.04 and Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-107.

In this post-divorce proceeding, a father sought to modify a parenting plan to increase his parenting time and reduce his child support obligation. He later sought to be designated as primary residential parent for the parties’ daughter due to threats made by the mother’s then-husband. The father was designated as such on a temporary basis, and the mother filed numerous motions seeking to be restored as the primary residential parent. After a trial, the court named Father primary residential parent, finding that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that the change was in the best interest of the child. The trial court entered a new parenting plan and set Mother’s support obligation. The mother appeals the designation and raises many other issues. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal concerns a subrogation action. Roberta Woody (“Woody”) accidentally backed her tractor-trailer into one driven by Darrell King (“King”). King had an insurance policy through Old Republic Life Insurance Company (“Old Republic”). Old Republic, as King’s subrogee, sued Woody and her employer, Osborn Transportation, Inc. (“Osborn”) (“Defendants,” collectively), in the Circuit Court for McMinn County (“the Trial Court”). King later joined as a plaintiff. The Trial Court allowed Old Republic to participate at trial alongside King’s counsel, but did not allow Old Republic to reveal its identity to the jury. After trial, the jury awarded King damages. Old Republic appeals, arguing among other things that it should have been permitted to identify itself so as to make a case for its own unique and specific damages. We hold, inter alia, that in this subrogation action, Old Republic could recover damages from Defendants only to the extent King could, and the Trial Court did not commit reversible error in preventing Old Republic from identifying itself to the jury. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety.